IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235767.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Effects of Protected Area Size on Conservation Return on Investment with Spatial Spillovers

Author

Listed:
  • Thiel, Kristen
  • Cho, Seonghoon
  • Armsworth, Paul

Abstract

Conservation return on investment (ROI), for all spatial scales, varies according to a wide range of characteristics. One feature that makes conservation ROI at the parcel level different from larger scale ROI is the impact of parcel size variation on ecological and economic effectiveness. Protected area size maintains an important role in both the benefit and cost associated with conservation. However, few studies have explicitly focused on the role of protected area size on conservation ROI specifically at the parcel level. Therefore, conservation ROI has been limited in its effectiveness in prioritizing parcels for conservation. The objective of our research is to examine how protected area size influences a parcel’s ecological and economic effectiveness through conservation ROI. This objective is accomplished by analyzing the parcel- level acquisition cost and the conservation benefit of protected areas acquired by a conservation organization, The Nature Conservancy (TNC). We develop an empirical model to examine how differences in protected area size influence conservation benefit as an ecological measurement, and how differences in the conservation benefit, as a measurement of conservation value, subsequently alter conservation cost. By assessing the sequential relationship in a spatial econometric modeling framework, we first examine the consequence of the size variation on conservation ROI and then we calculate and rank the ROI for each protected area with and without considering the spatial spillovers of conservation benefit and acquisition cost. We found that (1) protected areas acquired by TNC create more connected habitat, thereby improving species protection and mobility in the existing protected area network that existed prior to the TNC acquisition, and subsequently, such improvement is a major impetus to determine acquisition cost, (2) the increase in effective mesh size per dollar invested to acquire a parcel is greater for larger parcels than smaller parcels, implying that the overall efficiency that considers both ecological and economic efficiencies is higher for protecting larger areas relative to smaller ones, and (3) the inclusion of spillovers of both conservation benefit and cost in the ROI decision-making tool provides information about which parcels’ locations affect conservation benefit and cost in their neighboring parcels and to what extent.

Suggested Citation

  • Thiel, Kristen & Cho, Seonghoon & Armsworth, Paul, 2016. "Effects of Protected Area Size on Conservation Return on Investment with Spatial Spillovers," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235767, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235767
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235767
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235767/files/manuscript_Thiel%20A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235767?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mueller, Julie M. & Loomis, John B., 2008. "Spatial Dependence in Hedonic Property Models: Do Different Corrections For Spatial Dependence Result in Economically Significant Differences in Estimated Implicit Prices?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-20.
    2. Luc Anselin & Nancy Lozano-Gracia, 2009. "Errors in variables and spatial effects in hedonic house price models of ambient air quality," Studies in Empirical Economics, in: Giuseppe Arbia & Badi H. Baltagi (ed.), Spatial Econometrics, pages 5-34, Springer.
    3. Ferraro, Paul J., 2003. "Conservation Contracting in Heterogeneous Landscapes: An Application to Watershed Protection and Threshold Constraints," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(01), pages 1-12, April.
    4. James Boyd & Rebecca Epanchin-Niell & Juha Siikamäki, 2015. "Conservation Planning: A Review of Return on Investment Analysis," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 23-42.
    5. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    6. Kim, Taeyoung & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Larson, Eric R. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2014. "Protected area acquisition costs show economies of scale with area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 122-132.
    7. Adina M. Merenlender, 2006. "Habitat and Open Space at Risk of Land-Use Conversion: Targeting Strategies for Land Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 28-42.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Heeho & Roberts, Roland K. & Kim, Taeyoung & Lee, Daegoon, 2014. "Effects of changes in forestland ownership on deforestation and urbanization and the resulting effects on greenhouse gas emissions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 93-109.
    2. Baylis, Kathy & Paulson, Nicholas D. & Piras, Gianfranco, 2011. "Spatial Approaches to Panel Data in Agricultural Economics: A Climate Change Application," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 325-338, August.
    3. Claron, Charles & Mikou, Mehdi & Levrel, Harold & Tardieu, Léa, 2022. "Mapping urban ecosystem services to design cost-effective purchase of development rights programs: The case of the Greater Paris metropolis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    4. Arnab Bhattacharjee & Eduardo Castro & João Marques, 2012. "Spatial Interactions in Hedonic Pricing Models: The Urban Housing Market of Aveiro, Portugal," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 133-167, March.
    5. Conrad, Jon M. & Gomes, Carla P. & van Hoeve, Willem-Jan & Sabharwal, Ashish & Suter, Jordan F., 2012. "Wildlife corridors as a connected subgraph problem," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 1-18.
    6. Legras, Sophie & Martin, Elsa & Piguet, Virginie, 2018. "Conjunctive Implementation of Land Sparing and Land Sharing for Environmental Preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 170-187.
    7. Suter, Jordan F. & Conrad, Jon M. & Gomes, Carla P. & van Hoeve, Willem Jan & Sabharwal, Ashish, 2008. "Optimal Corridor Design for Grizzly Bear in the U.S. Northern Rockies," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6207, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Roger Bivand & Giovanni Millo & Gianfranco Piras, 2021. "A Review of Software for Spatial Econometrics in R," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-40, June.
    9. Rüttenauer, Tobias, 2023. "Spatial Data Analysis," SocArXiv mq7te, Center for Open Science.
    10. Tobias Ruttenauer, 2024. "Spatial Data Analysis," Papers 2402.09895, arXiv.org.
    11. Averi Chakrabarti & Karen A Grépin & Stéphane Helleringer, 2019. "The impact of supplementary immunization activities on routine vaccination coverage: An instrumental variable analysis in five low-income countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, February.
    12. Harold Alderman & John Hoddinott & Bill Kinsey, 2006. "Long term consequences of early childhood malnutrition," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(3), pages 450-474, July.
    13. Germán Bet & Cecilia Peluffo, 2023. "Democracy, commodity price booms, and infant mortality," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 153-193, January.
    14. Yashar Tarverdi & Anu Rammohan, 2017. "On the role of governance and health aid on child mortality: a cross-country analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(9), pages 845-859, February.
    15. Na Li & Richard J. Vyn & Ken McEwan, 2016. "To Invest or Sell? The Impacts of Ontario’s Greenbelt on Farm Exit and Investment Decisions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 389-412.
    16. Jesus Ferreiro & Carmen Gomez, 2022. "Employment protection, employment and unemployment rates in European Union countries during the Great Recession," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 240-258, July.
    17. Huh, Yesol & Kim, You Suk, 2023. "Cheapest-to-deliver pricing, optimal MBS securitization, and welfare implications," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(1), pages 68-93.
    18. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen, 2022. "Setting descriptive norm nudges to promote demand for insurance against increasing climate change risk," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 47(1), pages 27-49, January.
    19. Robert Moffitt & John Abowd & Christopher Bollinger & Michael Carr & Charles Hokayem & Kevin McKinney & Emily Wiemers & Sisi Zhang & James Ziliak, 2022. "Reconciling Trends in U.S. Male Earnings Volatility: Results from Survey and Administrative Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Ji Yan & Sally Brocksen, 2013. "Adolescent risk perception, substance use, and educational attainment," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(8), pages 1037-1055, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235767. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.